Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a quite biased view. As a non-Chinese scientist, I can attest that there is intense pressure to publish as many papers as possible pretty much everywhere , and this leads to a problem of bad research across the world. China may be among the worst offenders in this respect, but the particular thing the OP is asking about doesn't strike me as a Chinese-specific thing at all. I see non-Chinese scientists rushing…
It's not biased, it's a fact. I see it all the time as PC/AC/reviwer/etc. There is deluge of terrible papers from China that are just a mess, below any imaginable standard. Ones that labs in the EU/US/Russia/Japan/etc. don't put out. Yes, everyone has to publish, and there are bad papers out there, but the volume and low quality from China is unmatched.
Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#822Earlier quoted context omitted.
very interesting, is there a an article about it?
not an article, but there's a tweet (yeah oftentimes Twitter can be useful :) ): https://nitter.net/sanxiyn/status/1686782919178911744
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#823Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would have been more convincing if you had given real past examples rather than speculative future ones :) Although I'm pretty sure there are plenty that many people can think of, so it doesn't really detract much from your point.
Auctions, sanitary towels, retirement, banking, disposable razor, sewing machine, canned food, interchangeable parts, antibiotics, solar cells, postage stamp, light bulb, pencil, air conditioning, insurance, dwarf wheat, spreadsheet, cold chain, double entry book-keeping, S-bend, infant formula, clocks, public key cryptography, passports, batteries, printing press, video games, GPS, contraceptive pill, shipping conta…
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#824Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#825Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conductors of your ohmmeter are not that important, though. You can work around that by using four-terminal sensing, and you can of course also calibrate your probes by directly touching them together. Even if your ohmmeter conductors have a resistance of several ohm, you could still get an accurate measurement if your tool has a high enough resolution. A bigger issue is going to be sample size. A 1mm-diameter 1m…
How about the wires connected to your probes? Or the internal electronics that are used to gauge resistance? How do you work around those?
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#826Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an expert, but I would guess a direct measurement couldn't distinguish between a true superconductor and something with very very low resistance.
No. Any device to measuring resistence ALWAYS have a minimal value that can measure. They can never measure exactly zero ohms.
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#827Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, good points though the money angle is debatable. The USA and Europe are 'on average' also more pro-science than the rest of the world, but I think the East has the edge in education and comes across as more focused on progress. Probably this is underpinned in part because they have a ton of very hard problems that need solving and in the 'rich West' people are much less driven because their lives and the lives o…
One difference I’ve found living in the West and China is that being academically successful often gets you made fun of in the US but adored in China. There’s quite a lot of anti-intellectualism in the US. Therefore, there’s an equal amount of anti-science. Meanwhile, every Chinese I’ve ever met is pro-education and thinks highly of science.
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#828Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would have been more convincing if you had given real past examples rather than speculative future ones :) Although I'm pretty sure there are plenty that many people can think of, so it doesn't really detract much from your point.
Auctions, sanitary towels, retirement, banking, disposable razor, sewing machine, canned food, interchangeable parts, antibiotics, solar cells, postage stamp, light bulb, pencil, air conditioning, insurance, dwarf wheat, spreadsheet, cold chain, double entry book-keeping, S-bend, infant formula, clocks, public key cryptography, passports, batteries, printing press, video games, GPS, contraceptive pill, shipping conta…
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#829Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things also tend to be invented at about the same time at different places. I wonder if there are other people who were this close to invent it but just couldn't get it right.
Apparently the theory behind LK-99 was inspired by the studies from Eastern European scientists. However, after the Soviet collapse, the study was lost.
Re: Successful room temperature ambient-pressure magnetic levitation of LK-99
#830Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the career implications for rushing something out that is later found lacking is not great. On a tangent, this idea of reputation keeps on coming up in this whole discussion and I am burdened by it in a way I don't fully understand. The way people have talked, if this LK-99 doesn't work out, then it is almost as if those who published this did something _morally_ wrong. Well, morally wrong is not quite true, but th…
It's a direct side effect of reputation and funding being closely correlated: if your reputation is that you put out stuff that doesn't work you won't get funded. This is dumb, but that's how the world works. That's why you almost always see the 'more research is needed' line in various papers, it is most helpful when seeking for funding that one paper will lead to another. But (unfortunately) negative results aren't…
This sheds some light on it to me. I guess what partly surprises me is that people seem to care more about reputation than just a means for improving the signal to noise ratio in papers or as a estimate on what will give you your biggest bang for your buck.
The other issue I see come up is the idea that if there is no signal to noise filter, then a scientist might "waste their time," either reading the paper or trying to replicate. But to me, it sounds a little bit like trying to avoid actually doing science. And peer reviewed papers don't imply excellent quality either. You should evaluate papers on their merits. It is your job, as a scientist, to evaluate the most productive approaches based on the merits of the science being done, not based on reputation.